It is a limitation of the powers of the federal judiciary, not on an individual.
I’ll admit this seems confusing and a little bit contradictory of the common understanding of the workings of the Constitution. On the surface, the prohibition against suing the government seems to be “Citizen, I the Constitution forbid you to sue the Government.” Seemingly, a prohibition against an individual.
In practice, the actual wording (see below) is “Federal Court, I the 11th Amendment forbid you from accepting any lawsuit against the Government lodged by a Citizen, or even thinking your jurisdiction covers such an action.” An active prohibition against government (judiciary) action.
[QUOTE=11th Amendment]
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
[/QUOTE]
Quite so. Though I don’t think it’s really that confusing so long as you bear in mind that we have state courts, as Northern Piper explained quite nicely.
Got it. Thank you.
Yes, the general principle is indeed to guide the government’s actions, not those of individuals, and in this instance the prohibition is on the federal judiciary.
What it really was about was state sovereignty, and the states not wanting to open themselves to the federal courts in suits by individuals. Georgia had been ruled liable to a suit in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which precipitated the amendment. In practice that has come to mean that a state can be sued only in its state courts - with a small number of limited exceptions.
My comment was meant to be in line with the rest of what’s been said in this thread. The wording of the Constitution is always directed at government as that is its true, sole, purpose. The intent of the charge to government may be to affect individual actions, either positively - expansion of the franchise - or negatively - prohibiting or curtailing certain activities, but that is always handled at another level.
It’s my (unsophisticated) understanding that one of the strengths of the US constitution is that it functions as framework for legislation rather than as a tool for legislation (excepting the mis-step with prohibition). I’ve heard that some nations’ constitutions are quite cluttered with legislative items (although I can’t provide any cites or examples).
You can’t really separate a constitution from legislation. Nearly every clause and amendment reflects a policy choice of some sort.
But if you want to see what a constitution-as-legislative-tool really looks like check out California’s.
See also Alabama’s. It’s over 300,000 words; by comparison the US Constitution including all the amendments is around 5000 words.
The Indian Constitution clocks in at almost 80,000:
It’s considered the longest national constitution.
One of the greatest constitutional scholars produced by India is known as DD Basu.
He has written two commentaries on the Indian Constitution; a large spanning several volumes and a smaller “desk” version of two volumes calledBasu’s Shorter Constitution of India.
Each volume is several thousand pages thick.
I have a condensed version of Basu’s “desk” version on my book shelf. It’s only one volume, but about three inches thick.
I agree with, well all of the above comments. The Constitution does not criminalize any activity, but it Constitutionalizes it, for lack of a better term. Florida has a smoking ban in its State Constitution. If I am elected a State Representative in Florida and I carry an open container of alcohol into a FL restaurant, while smoking, have I violated both the US and FL constitutions in violation of my oath?
Yes, the intention of the 21st was to transfer jurisdiction back to the states, but there is a clear prohibition that is now constitutional. Can I swear an oath to uphold the Constitution if I violate it on my own actions?
Does Indian constitutional law come up a lot in your practice? 
Or is it just of academic interest?
It’s mainly academic and a souvenir of a trip to India, but I have had occasion to dip into it.